

The Strangeness of the Mars One Project 246
superboj sends an article written after its author investigated the Mars One Project for over a year. Even though 200,000 people have (supposedly) signed up as potential volunteers on a one-way trip to Mars, there are still frightfully few details about how the mission will be accomplished. From the article:
[Astronaut Chris Hadfield] says that Mars One fails at even the most basic starting point of any manned space mission: If there are no specifications for the craft that will carry the crew, if you don’t know the very dimensions of the capsule they will be traveling in, you can’t begin to select the people who will be living and working inside of it. "I really counsel every single one of the people who is interested in Mars One, whenever they ask me about it, to start asking the hard questions now. I want to see the technical specifications of the vehicle that is orbiting Earth. I want to know: How does a space suit on Mars work? Show me how it is pressurized, and how it is cooled. What’s the glove design? None of that stuff can be bought off the rack. It does not exist. You can’t just go to SpaceMart and buy those things."
The author concludes that the Mars One Project is "...at best, an amazingly hubristic fantasy: an absolute faith in the free market, in technology, in the media, in money, to be able to somehow, magically, do what thousands of highly qualified people in government agencies have so far not yet been able to do over decades of diligently trying, making slow headway through individually hard-won breakthroughs, working in relative anonymity pursuing their life’s work."
It's a scam (Score:5, Insightful)
The minute they said there was an application fee it should have been obvious.
That, plus the tiny size of the team, the handwaving away of all technical problems to subcontractors, and the bizarre funding ideas, should have warned people off long ago. Sadly the regular newsmedia, in their admirable efforts to publish fun and interesting science storise, were duped.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sadly, Space Nutters are adept at duping themselves. They think because they're intelligent in one domain, typically software, that their intelligence transfers to all scientific and engineering disciplines.
The romantic, grandiose visions of the Space Age Priests
http://www.theatlantic.com/tec... [theatlantic.com]
combined with the NASA propaganda (and Russians too, obviously) has resulted in entire generations stunted by ridiculous notions about space.
Space is hugely empty and deadly. This planet is where we are and where we
Re:It's a scam (Score:5, Interesting)
Anonymous Coward,
There is much truth in what you write. I got involved in this crowd back in the 1970s after reading Gerard K. O'Neill's The High Frontier: Human Colonies in Space. It was a thought provoking, impressive book. My involvement, though, was moderate and independent. While, at the beginning of my interest, I wanted to get to L5 by 95, I eventually realized that it would not be L5 by 1995 but more like L5 by 2495. O'Neill made significant proposals that appealed to me. Instead of adventure trips to the Moon or Mars, he -- and others -- proposed doing things like building space based solar power satellites to benefit humans on Earth. They are still in the future, but could come about in the future. There are many problems to solve, though.
Sending people to Mars? Let's see. Mars does not have a geomagnetic sphere to protect it from solar outbursts. People will die if they are on the surface when one of those things happens Martian atmosphere is very thin. At ground level atmospheric pressure is only 1% of Earth. That is not nearly enough. Martian gravity is less than half of Earth's. Is that enough? We shall have to experiment.
There is one place on Earth that explorers have explored since we have had written records -- Antarctica. It wasn't even discovered until 1820. The first expedition to Antarctica was the Scott expedition a century ago. We started building bases there after World War 2. Quite a few humans have now lived there -- at least for a short time. Same gravity, same atmosphere, same geomagnetic sphere. Just much colder.
The optimist in me thinks we humans will, eventually, live and work in places other than Earth. It is going to take a good bit of learning, though.
Enough for now.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess my position is, you have to start somewhere, and you can't reasonably expect the first try to succeed.
Re: (Score:2)
There's one barrier in front of space exploration - high launch costs. Everything else is surmountable or ignorable.
We've been sending people to Antarctica for a while. Many of the early explorers died. Tourists have died in Antarctica. Some space explorers will die because of shoddy equipment. We may even send people places with equipment known to be substandard. I wouldn't go but there seem to be plenty who would.
Re: (Score:2)
Hi Chuck, long time no see.
Mars does not have a geomagnetic sphere to protect it from solar outbursts. People will die if they are on the surface when one of those things happens
People will die if they're out on the surface of Earth unprotected, for large parts of Earth (deserts, arctic, oceans, etc). We manage ... and sometimes we lose a few.
. It is going to take a good bit of learning, though.
Of course it's going to take a good bit of learning. Fortunately that's something we humans tend to be good at
YOU are a scam (Score:3)
You figure all of NASA, the european space agency, the Russians, the Chinese... the various private undertakings, every satellite manufacturer and service provider in the world... are all deluded, do you? You think the ISS is an illusion, and that there are no raw materials to be had outside of deep gravity wells? You think the ISS can't be bettered? You think we can't solve the remaining problems just because they're "hard"? You think we won't? I suppose you think the landing of a man on the surface of the
Re: (Score:2)
No, just the private sector ones. Or more specifically, the private sector ones that aren't out-and-out scams.
Re: (Score:2)
your post in the context of mars one describes just exactly the kind of space nutter that was being described, so... great job at proving his point. Tying the profitable and for reason and realistic government space projects to the subject matter of Mars One just shows how much in the nut well you are. the project doesn't have infinite time, except in the sense that they don't except to give any results before blowing through the money(transferring into the pockets of the personnel, as no actual expenses ap
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, all you needed was the trope that the moon landings were faked by the US government to bring down the Soviet empire, and that's the entire parent/teacher conference from Interstellar. Minus the engineer's retort, of course.
Re: (Score:2)
This part is true.
Experts tend to believe their expertise extends to all fields. (See, "Neil deGrasse Tyson")
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure whether it's the coward that's speaking -- you're afraid of space and think everyone else should be, so you'll feel better about yourself -- or that as a Canadian you recognize that you'll probably never have a chance to go to space yourself and it's all just sour grapes.
I'm leaning towards the former, since that's how you sign yourself.
But sure, keep telling yourself that it's everybody else that's crazy, if that's what comforts you.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm a big fan of every single one of these things you mention, from more leisure, to equitable resource distribution, to political and social sanity in general. I'd add some things like educating many more people much closer to their true potential, moving away from a permanent wartime economy, curing the vast bulk of unaddressed diseases and finding the answers to a great number of fundamental mysteries of science. However, all these things make a good case for a counter-argument.
Same with TFA (Score:2)
Comparing the prospects of a private company sending people to mars with the claim that "...at best, an amazingly hubristic fantasy: an absolute faith in the free market, in technology, in the media, in money, to be able to somehow, magically, do what thousands of highly qualified people in government agencies have so far not yet been able to do over decades of diligently trying, making slow headway through individually hard-won breakthroughs, working in relative anonymity pursuing their life’s work."
Re: (Score:3)
The minute they said there was an application fee it should have been obvious.
That, plus the tiny size of the team, the handwaving away of all technical problems to subcontractors, and the bizarre funding ideas, should have warned people off long ago. Sadly the regular newsmedia, in their admirable efforts to publish fun and interesting science storise, were duped.
I doubt it's a "Scam"
If it were, they could have been a lot cleverer and gotten a lot more money.
I do think it's a bunch of well meaning people that will at some point, if they haven't already, realize they just got a shit-ton of money from a lot of people in a lot of countries that have a lot of laws... and they might not be able to pull this off... and it's inevitable that one of those laws in one of those countries will involve caning, hard labor or sex with large bikers... at which point they will vanis
Re: (Score:2)
At the risk of sounding pretentious, (Score:5, Insightful)
It really is an example of the effects of authority and herd behavior. They first approached a number of prominent science/tech figures and asked them to endorse it. Turns out, if you approach a large enough number of people with a crazy idea, a few will by chance support it, especially if you keep the details hidden. Then this was enough for the avalanche of followers and news reports to start.
Do we have the technology to get to Mars? Depends on who you ask. NASA already has the plans on the drawing board. They just don't have the money. And that's the sticking point. There is absolutely no way you are going to get the $100 billion required for a Mars mission by producing a freaking reality show.
Re: (Score:2)
There is absolutely no way you are going to get the $100 billion required for a Mars mission by producing a freaking reality show.
And even $100billion sounds optimistic.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey Kardashians vs. Martians (Kim, Kanye, Chloe and the whole gang vs. the costumed winners of American ninja warrior) might pull in that kind of advertising revenue)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The Olympic Games are funded through public funds, not advertising. The London olympics barely pulled $1 billion on advertising and $4 billion on broadcast revenue.
Cart not just before the horse (Score:3)
Somewhere on the next continent.
It would be nice to know that mammals can successfully reproduce in 1/3 G with healthy offspring.
And other little things like that.
Most of the promoters of space colonization always seem to be either ignorant or deliberately overlooking all the problems there were in colonizing the new world and Africa, post renaissance, and the sheer number of failed colonies. That was just on this planet. It's pretty difficult to make the case Mars will be easier.
Re: Cart not just before the horse (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Cart not just before the horse (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Cooled? (Score:2)
How does a space suit on Mars work? Show me how it is pressurized, and how it is cooled
Why would you need spacesuit cooling on Mars? It's not space, where the side facing the sun heats up and it is difficult to radiate heat, there is an atmosphere that is quite chilly. I would think that you would need spacesuit heating on Mars, not cooling. However, I'm not a rocket scientist, is there anyone who has definitive knowledge on this topic?
Re: (Score:2)
Saying that Mars has an atmosphere, while true, is maybe a bit too generous. I could easily believe that it can't cool sufficiently. Besides, wearing big bulky suits here on Earth, even in cold weather, can give you overheating issues, and these ones would have to be very big and very bulky indeed to last for very long.
Re: (Score:2)
How does a space suit on Mars work? Show me how it is pressurized, and how it is cooled
Why would you need spacesuit cooling on Mars? It's not space, where the side facing the sun heats up and it is difficult to radiate heat, there is an atmosphere that is quite chilly. I would think that you would need spacesuit heating on Mars, not cooling. However, I'm not a rocket scientist, is there anyone who has definitive knowledge on this topic?
At 6 millibar pressure, you are very close to a vacuum spacesuit environment; the atmosphere is not going to cool or heat you significantly*. Of course, the Sun is less intense on Mars, but if you are working and generating heat, I am sure you will need cooling.
* This is how the surface temperature in the Sun can be 25 C, while 1 meter up it's -25 C. If you were standing there, the heat from the surface would be much more important than the cooling from the atmosphere.
Re:Cooled? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Upshot is that a suit would need a general thermal regulation capability (heating and cooling).
Making it reflective might well be enough to handle the cooling aspect. Probably would. Side bonus, being easier to see. Down side, requires frequent cleaning. As you dust up, you get hot. The future of all kinds of low-pressure suits is to use a constrictive layer instead of pressurizing. It should be a relatively simple problem to solve. Each suit will need to be custom fitted to an extent not necessary with pressurized suits, however, which are AFAIK already fairly customized.
Re: (Score:2)
While the Martian surface temperatures are fairly low (~63ÂC) the atmosphere is also incredibly thin. At the surface the atmosphere is about 1/100th the density of the Earth's atmosphere. This means the ability for the atmosphere to convect heat away from a spacesuit is 1/100th that you would expect on Earth.
The occupant as well as the electronics and other powered elements of the suit all need a way to bleed of waste heat. A small heat sink on the back might work on the Earth but would need to be much
I've got this vision (Score:2)
That they're going to build a giant version of the salmon cannon.
Wait what, there's a registration fee? (Score:4, Interesting)
I thought it was just a harmless enthusiast group promoting space travel and stuff.
If they're actually taking people's money as a fee (rather than a charitable donation) when they have no launcher no lander no habitat no nothing, they're selling snake oil.
Re:Wait what, there's a registration fee? (Score:4, Insightful)
They take $5-$75 (depending on how well-off your home country is), and they have tens of thousands of applications. You have to be a total moron to mistake that for anything other than a donation to the project. Phrasing it as an "application" makes it more personal and is a good marketing gimmick.
Re:Wait what, there's a registration fee? (Score:5, Insightful)
200 000 total morons then.
they should have just have asked for donations, would be ethically easier to defend.
and that really explains how why they were asking for applicants when they really were asking for donors, to get money. money from morons.
that really explains all the strangeness of the project: first they needed some cash and this provided them with some cash. not with enough cash to do anything related to the actual stated goal of course but plenty of money to pay for living expenses for couple of people for few years. as a project like that, there's nothing strange about it.
oh and had they any real plan then they could have found few rich donors to pay the same money. but since they don't have, this is the way they had to go - since rich bigtime donors tend to ask things like "how?".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't worry ... (Score:2)
They should just make the horror movie now (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Capricorn One
at least one episode of The Outer Limits (I'm thinking the one with Michael Dorn as an astronaut who's been taken over by an alien entity or somesuch. Or was that Masters of Science Fiction? Twilight Zone? Shit, I can't even remember)
Red Planet
Escape From Mars
(my favourite) The Martian Chronicles, adapted from the book of the same name by Ray Bradbury
Sort of related, there was a movie on TV the other night, called Into Infinity, made in 1975 by Gerry Anderson. Concerned a family a la Lost In Sp
true but... (Score:2, Interesting)
I have no illusions about Mars One. But I think it's time to explicitly tell NASA to stop wasting money on manned space travel and stick to launching climate satellites and space telescopes and robotic interplanetary missions, something they have had some success at; even there, they need to become much more efficient.
Re:true but... (Score:5, Insightful)
even there, they need to become much more efficient.
more efficient ... than who? who else has autonomously landed a nuclear powered rover the size of a small car on the surface of mars? do you have some evidence to support that this should / could have been done for less (2.5B USD)?
i searched for "curiosity rover pork" and the first article that came up was from the tea party. there you go.
Triumph of 21st century thought (Score:2, Interesting)
Think about it (if you can):
Wanting something is enough to make it happen.
Wisdom of crowds.
Scientists don't know everything.
You'll be famous.
Sounds like the recipe for external validation that every GenY and Millenial are craving.
But if there WAS a SpaceMart... (Score:5, Funny)
Not invented here syndrome? (Score:5, Insightful)
to be able to somehow, magically, do what thousands of highly qualified people in government agencies have so far not yet been able to do over decades of diligently trying, making slow headway through individually hard-won breakthroughs, working in relative anonymity pursuing their life's work
Personally, I think it's great that there are people dumb/crazy/brave enough to try to accomplish this outside of whatever the ossified system is. I'm sure Linus was told by plenty of people "You can't develop a better operating system like this! We've been sitting in cubicles at Bell Labs for 20 years, slaving over punch cards and 9 track mag tapes toiling in anonymity and you think a bunch of Internet hackers are going to create a viable operating system that can do real work?"
Maybe this is what bothers all those people, that despite their trying and relative anonymity someone else NOT diligently working in anonymity and utilizing other skills or methods will succeed where they haven't, and this bugs them. Should there be a manned mission to Mars it should be THEIR mission because of their ceaseless faith and devotion to the true methods and ideals of space travel.
It almost reads like a religous argument from the 16th century -- why should a group of barely literate peasants be allowed to read and interpret the word of God and achieve salvation through their own heretical ideals and methods? It can only be achieved through the devotion to and leadership of the one true church and its singular vision as revealed through its chosen leaders.
Now, I don't know much about Mars One and it probably is a bullshit deal designed to fleece the naive and they can't get to Disney's "Mission to Mars" let alone fly a mission to Mars. So what? Whining that it's hard and and that someone wants to do it some other way than the "true way" sounds like MORE bullshit designed to protect the chosen ones than any real criticism.
Re: (Score:2)
Spot on.
Re: (Score:3)
First of all, many of the people who worked on Linux had degrees and/or professional experience in directly relevant areas.
Second, Linux was an unusual case because programming requires relatively little in the way of hardware compared to other pursuits--and certainly compared to going to Mars.
Third, computer programs don't need to be as tightly integrated as the output of rocket scientists does. Furthermore, because they are not as tightly integrated, the system can limp along with some missing features f
Re:Not invented here syndrome? (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm doing a (free) operating system (just a hobby, won't be big and professional like gnu) for 386(486) AT clones.
vs
I'm creating a kick-ass OS that'll totally blow minix and gnu/hurd out of the water and I'm offering a lifetime license for only $5-75 for early adopers on Kickstarter
Mars One has as much substance as a MLM pyramid scheme, lots of hype and glossy marketing which not only siphons away funds that could have gone to serious projects but will likely backfire on everyone else when the bubble bursts. There's a difference between thinking outside the box and not really trying, particularly using other people's money.
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, I think it's great that there are people dumb/crazy/brave enough to try to accomplish this outside of whatever the ossified system is.
Sure "dumb/crazy/brave" can be a good thing at times but when you bamboozle hundreds of thousands of people into giving you money for something that is obviously not possible it becomes a scam.
I'm sure Linus was told by plenty of people "You can't develop a better operating system like this!
There's the rub. Linus improved on something that had already been done. Unix had already been created. So far no one has sent a person 54 million kilometers to a place with negligible atmosphere, no protection from cosmic rays and asked them to survive. The difference is many orders of magnitude.
So what? Whining that it's hard and and that someone wants to do it some other way than the "true way" sounds like MORE bullshit designed to protect the chosen ones than any real criticism.
Calling colonizing Ma
Whatever ... (Score:3)
We have to get off this planet and, like every other early voyages to any place we've ever been, we have got to experience lots of failures.
If dude ranchers want to take the first lunge, it's their business.
Re: (Score:2)
that's fine, but it's not the point. selecting a crew before you have even plans for very nearly ever piece of significant hardware required for the mission is putting the cart about 55 million km before the horse.
Re: (Score:2)
Even early voyagers has some hope of returning. Mars1 is a one way trip.
Actually mars one is like a typical non-profit (Score:4, Interesting)
Typical non-profit entities have grandiose goals such as eliminating poverty or feed orphans or some other goal that tugs as the hearts (and purse strings) of a dedicated and forgiving audience. They usually have no idea what they are doing and are making it up along the way. Of course they try really hard and maybe they accomplish a few things along away, but of course they never really "solve" the problem. If they do they find something else.**
Meanwhile, the principal of the organization get to earn a living doing what they enjoy with other folks footing the bill.
Take it for what it is people. People gotta earn a living somehow...
**for instance, the March of Dimes was started to stamp out Polio. After the vaccine was developed (none of their funding contributed to the Salk Vaccine, it was spent on palliative care), they had to find something else to do, they simply didn't wind down, which is why you have to start with a really really grandiose goal to make sure it doesn't happen to quickly
Maybe down a few (Score:2)
Given the private sector's safety record with manned space flight, I wonder how many of those 200,000 volunteers have backed out in the past week or so.
Hadfield's got a point (Score:3)
we're not talking about commodity gear here, this is frontier tech as it has been the entire run of the space program so far. They still haven't got EVA gloves right yet (too bulky, means that equipment designed for orbital maintenance has to be given the Duplo treatment - handles twice as large as they would otherwise need to be, etc.), manned capsules are still touch and go, with a what, 1 in 50 chance of a catastrophic failure at any point in the mission? Still not bad odds considering we're talking about the most complex machines ever conceived of by human minds (the shuttle orbiters have over 2.5 million parts and 230 miles of wire - each. Any one of which can fail with potentially fatal consequences). Step one of having a viable programme is reducing the odds of failure while maintaining or improving the safety record. Reducing the odds of failure involves reducing the number of parts which can fail, ie simplifying the design - considering the SOV programme was pretty much experimental by its very nature, I think the kinks are fairly well known by now.
good article (Score:2)
we could/should be on Mars **now** but as a NASA/ESA/JAXA combined science/colonization/mining mission....not some reality show!
TFA is a good article...it's one of the few times I'd read TFA *before* it was on /.
the author does a good job of telling the truth (MarsONE is a SCAM) while respecting the dreams/dignitiy of the unfortunate souls who have dropped everything to sign up
what MarsOne tells me is that **people are ready for this**...it's time to go...but there's only one way to do this: FULL ON...no ha
I'm set, at least for the moon... (Score:2)
I've got my Pan Am Moon First Flight Club membership card!
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
If anyone says Mars colonization is 'unaffordable' remind them that the cost of the Iraq war alone would have covered NASA's budget for another 200 years, or funded at least 100 manned Mars missions.
That's not to mention all the other wars, and not even getting started on other wasteful programs like the War on Drugs. Space travel is actually damn cheap compared to all the other crap we waste massive amounts of money on.
Yes and no (Score:2)
Really? (Score:2)
Of course there are frightfully few details, they have no idea how to go about this, and probably have no real plan. I would question whether they EVER plan to do the mission, but even leaving the obvious scam potential out of it, even a temporary mission would require technology and organization at the very limits of current possibility.
No one is going to mars in the Mars One project, now, or ever.
Re:Uh, simple (Score:5, Interesting)
I am torn on this issue.
On the one hand, I agree with the submission's stance. Those things are custom engineered to perform optimally in the specific problem domain they are engineered for. A space suit worn to do EVAs wont work on mars, or vice versa.
The habitats need to be designed with all manner of ergonomic considerations; people will live the rest of their lives inside the damned thing. They need to be designed to withstand constant ablation by blowing sand and fine particulate dusts. They need to have door seals that are up the the task. They need to have robust circuitry that can withstand the increased intensity of solar storm radiation, since mars lacks a comprehensive global magnetosphere. So many things need to be engineered for, purpose built for the specific tasks at hand, and built to not only last, but last a lifetime, or longer.
On the other hand, the nature of this kind of mission makes it toxic to any world government that would actually be able to accomplish it properly. No politician in this universe wants to be the one who willfully signs the death certificates of highly trained, highly intelligent and skilled people. That's what a manned mission to mars would be. It would require much more than the vertical thrust booster used by the LLM in the 60s to get the crew back to the command module. It would take another complete lower stage rocket. Unless you want to soft-land something that weighs millions of tons, filled with highly volatile propellant on mars so that the crew can get back into space again after the mission period is over, you are planning a one-way trip, and that means consigning those people to die up there.
Politically, a proper mars mission is a non-starter.
That means that only people that would be willing to finance it are sociopaths. People that dont mind if people die, and dont care about being associated with signing that check. Corporate America, and those similarly aligned to the all mighty dollar.
Sadly, that same sociopathy means that any such mission will be done with duct tape, bailing wire, and discount bubblegum wrappers. Lowest bidder on everything. Minimum training for the mission personnel. A mission that, if it succeeds, it would be a statistical anomaly.
I am conflicted.
I want people to get off this planet. But at the same time, I want them to get there safely, properly, and with the tools they need to actually have a chance to pull it off.
I agree with the article author, that the lack of meaty information about this project is not something that instills confidence. By now, the first round of selectees should be getting initial training. Where are they being trained, and what are they being taught? Did they even get out of their homes yet?
Who knows.
Re:Uh, simple (Score:5, Interesting)
We have to think of everything -- and more. We should have solved the problems the people on mars will face before we send them there. There should be at least three well-tested working backups for everything thats needed: water, food, housing, etc... Medicine needs to be advanced far much further, so that possible cancer from the radiation can be healed or prevented.
If these conditions are provided, we can try to get to mars without a large risk. We will need unmanned testing missions before. We will need a shitload of money.
Its far more likely that we will send people that die early. We will have to realize that that will be a send-and-die mission. We don't have the patience to build, test and plan for a mission this complex and large.
Our long term goal should be on how to bootstrap an industrialized system from some rockets we sent there. Things you can manufacture on mars will be cheap, but things you need to send there will be expensive. When you've reached the point where you can build a rocket (or at least the heaviest parts of it) you can get back. This can be as simple as the fuel, and dumb parts of the lower stages.
Re:Uh, simple (Score:4, Insightful)
well they don't have the money to send a small gift box to mars so that's why they haven't had the money or thought it worth the effort to figure out the gritty details.
Re:Uh, simple (Score:4, Insightful)
There should be at least three well-tested working backups for everything thats needed: water, food, housing, etc...
I would start by creating self contained units that can survive equally well in the sahara, antartica, and underwater with minimal* air exchange with
the outside. Salt water, cold, and sand are notoriously hard on equipment and if a single type of unit can survive in all 3 environments then they
might have a fighting chance. My guess is we have very little that can survive 80 years in any of those 3 environments without repair materials
being sent and I don't see mars being self sufficient for a very long time.
* the only reason I say minimal is that there is no reason even on mars that you couldn't do outgassing or ingassing of needed or unneeded
gases. It doesn't have to be 100% self contained if there is some way to regulate correctly the amount of different gases in the environment.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I don't think it's that we need to not send repair materials, but they should be included up front. Consider them as consumables.
For example, salt water is (currently) best dealt with by sacrificial anodes. It's dirt cheap (when you don't need to lift the mass), and it works very effectively. You just need to make sure to launch with enough of them to supply a large safety factor. This is engineering 101. You don't build products that rely on critical parts you anticipate becoming unavailable. You make sure
Re:Uh, simple (Score:5, Insightful)
Its far more likely that we will send people that die early.
Yep. Being a pioneer is all about finding new and interesting ways to die ... or the old ways in new settings.
See for example the first few hundred years (counting from the Vikings) of European colonization attempts of North America. (Probably the same holds true of Asian attempts, but they're a lot further back in the prehistorical record.)
Or more recently, the roughly 10% that died along the Oregon Trail.
As a plaque on some old Conestoga wagon puts it: "The cowards never started. The weak died along the way. Only the strong survived."
That said, only the stupid set out on a trek like that without preparation, and they don't even last as long as the weak. If Mars One has being doing preparation, they haven't been talking about it.
Re: (Score:3)
Yep. Being a pioneer is all about finding new and interesting ways to die ... or the old ways in new settings.
In all the examples you cited, the pioneers in question didn't set out on a one-way trip to die - they fully intended to live. The explorers who first went to the South Pole, Everest, and other terrestrial extremes all planned on a return trip. In fact, I'd say it was their will to live that drove them on. Most had family and children, and when faced with adversity did all they could to live and return to their loved ones. Shackleton did not intend to die in the South Pole, and thus he was driven to push hi
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Why? What do you think is within the reach of human beings in space that is not available on Earth? A reply containing the words "wonder", "exploration" or "adventure" are not acceptable.
Space is mind bogglingly large but despite that the Earth is fucking huge. Helpfully it's also absolutely drenched in the sort of things us humans need to survive. With a bit of preparation we can readily travel to just about anywhere on the surface of the Earth. To simply survive we do
Re: (Score:3)
Why? What do you think is within the reach of human beings in space that is not available on Earth? A reply containing the words "wonder", "exploration" or "adventure" are not acceptable.
Redundancy. There are lots of potential disasters that could wipe out life on earth. Most (but not all) of them are remediated by having humans on another planet.
Even with a self-sustained colony on Mars the odds of humanity being wiped out by a natural disaster (asteroid, etc) aren't significantly improved over all of humanity on a single planet. Without a full ecosystem a Martian colony would eventually die out, likely long before they were able to build their own means to spread to other planets.
Isn't that the point of sending people to mars? To build infrastructure to allow more people to arrive?
Granted, 6 people living in a tiny habitate on mars aren't going to recolonize Earth even if they had the means to come back, but a colony of 100,000 might. Such a large colony may be decades (centuries?) in the future, but until the first people arrive, there will continue to be zero people on mars -- someone has to be first.
Re:Uh, simple (Score:5, Informative)
Infrastructure is a lot more complicated some pressure capsules and solar panels. Infrastructure to make a colony viable would mean agriculture and industry (including ways to deal with their negative externalities). Everything about both of those would need to be bootstrapped from Earth.
Even at SpaceX's best rates for the Falcon 9 and Dragon capsules at maximum capacity it would take over 14,000 launches to put those 100,000 colonists into orbit. That alone would cost a trillion dollars (assuming awesome rates from SpaceX and no failures). Just the structures and resources to keep those people alive for the first year would cost several tens of trillions of dollars more. The infrastructure to make an actual colony...well hopefully you get the picture. To put the numbers in better perspective we've only launched a little over 300 manned orbital missions in history. Ever.
Re: (Score:2)
You're kinda missing the point of asteroid mining. The idea is to gather useful materials up there and keep them up there to support a space based civilization. That way you can use and move the stuff around using energy efficient transfer orbits and modest amounts of delta-vee, instead of lifting mountains of material against Earth's gravity. A lot of high-tech from Earth will be needed to bootstrap early operations, but the goal would be a self supporting space-based society based on raw resources avai
Re:Uh, simple (Score:4, Interesting)
Mars One is a sad scam. It is not real. It was never intended to be real, it has always been intended to separate gullible people from their money.
Bootstrapping a space based industry would be fantastically expensive. Delta-v is the least of your concerns with space based industry. It's the simple questions like "how do you lubricate mechanical compoentns" or "what do you do about swarf in microgravity?" that are the really expensive problematic things. The bootstrapping needs to find viable solutions to those problems, launch it into orbit, assemble it, and then maintain it until a point where it becomes self-sustaining (assuming that point exists).
It's more likely that the cheapest solution will be manufacture finished items on Earth and launch them into space (what we do now). It's not likely there exists a break even point for space based industry. There's just way too many small problems to overcome to make it really feasible. The ISS cost about $150 billion to construct, a minimally feasible space-based industrial base would likely need to be at least an order of magnitude larger. The comparable investment in mining, refining, and manufacturing on Earth would yield significantly higher output.
Re: (Score:2)
"spreading out the species" Is the key point we have worked on for nearly 2 million years, no why stop. As our planet is sufficiently populated and more or less under our control (ok it isn't, but at least we can survive for now), we have now to set out for other possible zones to live. Perhaps we have to change how we live and what we are. We've however already been there and done that. Multiple times. One example of recent times is that grown-ups can digest milk -- a result of us having settled down. Not
Re:Uh, simple (Score:4, Interesting)
You have somer serious misconceptions in this post.
The ability for adults to digest milk has nothing to do with "settling down". Adults producing the lactase enzyme is a result of natural selection favoring humans that could digest dairy in regions where it was a viable food source. Both goats and cows are grazing animals and so prehistoric humans that drank their milk didn't have to "settle down" to herd them. Humans remained fairly nomadic until large scale agriculture developed. Lactose tolerance came long before agriculture. It has nothing to do with intelligence.
This is incorrect by several orders of magnitude. Clothes don't allow don't make parts of Earth more habitable. If you're stuck in the Alaskan wilderness you can still die of exposure even if you have warm clothes. Clothes tend to allow people to more comfortably live in some areas but they don't do a lot to make those places livable. Shelter makes inhospitable parts of the Earth livable, clothes let you get between different shelters.
Space suits needed on Mars don't need to just keep people warm or dry but provide them with a breathable atmosphere at a workable pressure. They'll also need to have facilities for hydration and feeding since they'll be self contained. A space suit capable of keeping someone alive on Mars is much more than mere clothing.
This is just fantasy. Genetic engineering could in the future filter out congenital diseases or make everyone lactose tolerant but it's a little absurd to state as a matter of fact that we could engineer ourselves to live on Mars (or some other planet). Large complex organisms like humans can't be easily adapted for life on Mars or elsewhere. We're not tardigrades or bacteria. Even if we did manage to somehow engineer ourselves to live on Mars or elsewhere those creations would no longer be "ourselves". They would be a wholly new species and incompatible with our own. They would as as alien to us as native Martian bacteria.
Re: (Score:2)
OK point taken, drinking milk doesn't need us to settle down.
But with the clothes I disagree. Yes you can die of exposure in alaskan wilderness, but clothes are more than just something that adds comfort. I'm not talking about 20th+ century humans who can use their heated cars to get anywhere, I'm talking of the inuit on their sled on the way to catch a seal. Try that without clothes. And yes, space suits are far more complicated than the clothes we wear, and yes on mars we are far more reliant on the suits
Re: (Score:2)
My statement was that we will tailor ourselves through a mixture of technology and biology.
If we were actually committed to the technology, we would never have to go ourselves. Sending human bodies implies a zealous commitment to a low tech solution frozen in time, like steam power in the age of elect
Re:Uh, simple (Score:4, Interesting)
A human would have approximately 5 to 10 seconds in which to respond to the tear in their suit, and if repressurized within 60 seconds, have a fairly good chance of survival.
From the source:
Source:
http://www.geoffreylandis.com/... [geoffreylandis.com]
The use of a form-fitting pressure suit, like that used by a fighter pilot (or those being demoed by MIT for use on mars [washingtonpost.com], which have form-fitting metal coils to supply mechanical compression) would buy the suit occupant even more time in the event of a tear in the suit by preventing ebullism, and resulting drop in blood pressure, and resulting loss of consciousness.
There are a number of potential mechanisms that could be implemented into a space suit of the MIT type, that would make abrasion type holes in the suit less lethal, such as the non-newtonian silicon shear thickening liquid that is used in ballistic vests. [howstuffworks.com] A thin layer of this inside the suit would harden under the pressure being exerted on it by the occupant of the suit against the reduced pressure outside, exerted through the tear. This would reduce the effects of the hard vacuum on the suit occupant, buying more time to apply an appropriate patch to the suit.
Re: (Score:2)
Why? What do you think is within the reach of human beings in space that is not available on Earth? A reply containing the words "wonder", "exploration" or "adventure" are not acceptable.
Thank you for your opinion. If that's how you feel, great. I'm happy for you. But you don't get to decide for everybody else what's important to them. What motivates others is neither definable by you, nor is it any of your business.
Will others be successful? Maybe. Personally, I don't think that colonizing Mars is a good first step, but I'm not closed-minded or narcissistic enough to think that my own trained-in prejudices are the laws of nature -- unlike some people. As such, I wish those folks a
Re: (Score:2)
It seems a trend to turn to petty and childish insults rather than try to provide cogent arguments
Re: (Score:2)
It seems a trend to turn to petty and childish insults rather than try to provide cogent arguments or participate in a conversation. It's pretty sad.
The Mars One "project" is such amazingly obvious bullshit I honestly feel bad for anyone that thinks they are serious. Chris Hadfield is 100% correct in his analysis of the project. It's not only going nowhere but was intended from the beginning to go nowhere, it's a scam to part overly hopeful of gullible people from their money. Supporting the Mars One group is just supporting exploitation rather than furthering space exploration.
I don't object to calling Mars One a steaming pile. If it's not a scam, it's an excellent facsimile thereof. Nor did I make any comment that even comes close to saying that Mars One has any kind of real chance to do what they're claiming. I even read TFA and I agree with Hadfield as well.
I do object to folks trying to shove their prejudices down other people's throats. You said:
Re: (Score:2)
Using a Heinlein quote to be insulting is no more mature than insulting me directly. It's certainly not a sign of cleverness. It's actually pretty sad.
Re: (Score:2)
Using a Heinlein quote to be insulting is no more mature than insulting me directly. It's certainly not a sign of cleverness. It's actually pretty sad.
Thanks for the tip. Next time I'll insult you directly. But, darn it, I've always loved that quote and your obnoxious comments made it so easy to use it on you. As for maturity, pot, meet kettle.
Oh, and have a great day!
Re: (Score:2)
" But you don't get to decide for everybody else what's important to them. What motivates others is neither definable by you, nor is it any of your business."
Yet you think you're a spokesperson for the SPEEEEECIIIEEEEEEES!!! (with echo effect!)
Whackacracka-doodle-doo!!!
Interesting that after I express my opinion that it's inappropriate to tell other people what to think or feel, you claim I'm speaking for everyone. I'm going to assume you're not a native English speaker and just misunderstood. The alternative is that you're just another troll. Don't you have some midget porn to watch or something instead?
Re: (Score:2)
Why? What do you think is within the reach of human beings in space that is not available on Earth? A reply containing the words "wonder", "exploration" or "adventure" are not acceptable.
Unacceptable to you, perhaps. What a miserable existence you must suffer.
It does, however, explain your failure of imagination.
Re: (Score:2)
If you have to resort to insults rather than presenting a cogent argument maybe you're not quite capable of participating in the conversation. It's certainly food for thought.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not even a question of profitability, it's simply wasteful to expand the resources to mine a single asteroid when a single mountain on Earth is far more accessible and likely has a much better yield of industrially useful materials.
There are no mountains made from pure gold, pure iridium, pure iron or pure coal.
However there are such asteroids.
So from a strictly monetary standpoint mining asteroids makes a lot of sense if you don't care what the economic impact on earth is.
Re:Uh, simple (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Uh, simple (Score:5, Interesting)
political freedom for starters.
I stand astounded. Whatever makes you think that living on Mars will bring political freedom? How are those ideas even connected?
Everything about Mars suggests that political freedom is virtually impossible. You will not be able to pay the cost of your transfer to Mars (including the tons of food and supplies needed to keep you alive there). This means that to convince someone to pay for your trip to Mars, they will require something from you in return. The basis of life on Mars is obligation - your obligation to the government or company that paid for you to travel there.
In addition there is the issue that nobody on Mars will have any money or any means to make money. There is no resources , no soil to grow crops, no infrastructure to support primary industry or manufacturing. At best people might trade the various things they brought from earth. And themselves (i.e. prostitution), although the notion of sex will be less attractive after the radiation sickness kicks in.
Mars will be like prison, without any chance of escape. Linking life on Mars with political freedom is simply laughable.
Or has the situation with the orwelian police state in much of the western world, coupled with the growing corporatocracy in the eastern world, and the overall growing issues with pollution and and criminality in the rest of the world.
It might not have occurred to you that you caused that orwellian state. Who is to blame for the state of Western democracy but ourselves? In which, you will just take that corruption with you to Mars. Unless you view yourself and coincidentally your fellow travellers as somehow more enlightened than the rest of us - do you think that?
Re: (Score:3)
You know. I tried to write a calm, and sensible reply to this poisoned barb you have thrown at me, and I just couldn't do it.
Let's just say that you are simply wrong on a good many of your points.
Here are just a few of them:
1) You make the mistake in asserting that people leaving earth as political asylum seekers would be doing so without something already being there. Even the puritans didnt leave england en-mass until AFTER the colonies in north america were fully settled and productive. --What you are ar
Re:Uh, simple (Score:4, Insightful)
The leverage with which powerful people can control others on Mars would be undeniably much greater than on Earth. On Earth, you can flee on foot. You can hide in the amazon and become a hunter-gathered if you want. On Mars, if you're at odds with your colony leadership, you have to acquire spacesuits air food water building materials etc. Everyone will know where you are on a Mars base, and all they have to do to eliminate dissent is "accidentally" depressurize the compartment. Mars requires living together and depending on each other a great deal, and that lends itself to strong rules and strong leadership.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
If it was imperative that we leave Earth within 5 or 10 years, how would we begin? Let's do that. There is no certainty that we have more time.
At least, that's one way of thinking.
It'd make a hell of a reality show (Score:2)
See how many days it takes for a colonist to die on Mars. Will it be from lack of oxygen? Run out of supplies before he/she can get a successful harvest? Blow their brains out? Add a deathpool component to it, and that will fund the mission right there.
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure if you're joking or not... that's literally the plan of the Mars One people (the reality show, not necessarily the death pool). That's how they plan to fund the colony.
Re: (Score:2)
"No politician in this universe wants to be the one who willfully signs the death certificates of highly trained, highly intelligent and skilled people."
I don't know why. They usually have no problem sending large numbers of people to their deaths. All we need to do is convince them that there are probably terrorists on Mars and it'll be a done deal.
Re: (Score:2)
what, apart from the fact that the primary contractor for the Jupiter-Redstone missiles was Chrysler and for the Saturn, Boeing?
Re: (Score:3)
That should be the first step. Learn how to mine the moon, export water to space, split the water to make fuel, oxygen etc. Mine moon materials and be self sufficient within easy communications range of earth. The skills learned there will be useful in eventually going to Mars. The distance for resupply is more realistic. The fuel created can be used for other missions. It is the next logical step from the ISS.